PFS - Thunder and Fang with 2 Earth Breakers

[Diminuendo]

thaX wrote:

The Earthbreaker is always gonna be a Two-Handed weapon. How the character/creature wields it will not change that.

Unless of course there was a feat that allowed an earthbreaker to be used as a one handed weapon- OH WAIT!

[Abyssian]

Let's just boil it down like this:

Are you playing in PFS?
If no: Talk to your GM

If yes: Carry all the gear you need in case the ruling is different than you were hoping for

Any questions?

[Diminuendo]

Lets boil it down like this;

if you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand, you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand. What you have in your other hand is irrelevent.

[Abyssian]

Dim, I'm with you. There are many players and GMs that won't agree, though. That's why the CYA boiling. Know what I mean?

[Nevan Oaks]

Used as is not the same as becoming.
A medium earth breaker (2-handed) that goes down one size step becomes a 1-handed weapon, the feat does not change the weapon size only the way it is wielded.

A medium longsword is a one handed weapon, I can attack with it using both hands for 1.5 damage, but it doesn't become a 2-handed weapon just because I'm using 2 hands.
Can wield in one hand is not the same as becomes one handed.

[Sub_Zero]

This talk of the redcap has got me thinking. I'm still not convinced, but I thought I'd have other exam the redcap rules and the titan mauler rules.

Titan Mauler

Quote:

Massive Weapons (Ex)

At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. The attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).

redcap

Quote:

Heavy Weapons (Ex)

A redcap can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty.

Also relevant to this discussion is the rules on inappropriately sized weapons.

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons:

A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

My question becomes: Is the change in size category a penalty?

I ask, because the reason that the titan mauler can't use a large sized weapon is that it only removes the attack penalty to inappropriately sized weapons. This means that the change in size category prevents it from actually using the larger size. On the other hand the redcap is fully capable of using a larger weapon. Now the question becomes why? It's rules state that it can used weapons sized for medium creatures without penalty.

The only way that this applies to the size category change, is if this is some sort of penalty. It isn't described as such.

Actually as I write this, it seems more likely that the only conclusion this leads too is that the redcap can't use a 2-handed scythe and not that a titan mauler might be able to use a large 2-handed weapon.

Still, it gets one thinking :)

[thaX]

Diminuendo wrote:

thaX wrote:

The Earthbreaker is always gonna be a Two-Handed weapon. How the character/creature wields it will not change that.

Unless of course there was a feat that allowed an earthbreaker to be used as a one handed weapon- OH WAIT!

Ugh...

Nevan Oaks pointed it out, I shall repeat it. Using it as a one-handed weapon does not change the fact that it is still a Two-Handed weapon.

A two handed weapon wielded in one hand does not morph into a different weapon. I believe that a cartoon has some weapons change as characters use them, so does the awful Transformer movies by Micheal Bay. This isn't happening with the Earthbreaker using this feat.

Two handed weapons do not change when a feat allows a character to wield it in one hand. They steadfastly stay the same weapon.

How many other ways can I put it?

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

So there's is my evidence that you asked that indicates that the benefit section lays out what the feat does, and the flavor is just flavor.

So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?

Ironically, you proved our side.

If the flavor and rules don't match, the developers need to be informed.

In other words, they should match. The fact they don't is a sign that either the flavor or the benefit text is in error.

Diminuendo wrote:

if you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand, you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand. What you have in your other hand is irrelevent.

Except when the way you are doing 1 hand assumes a Klar in the offhand ;-)

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

So there's is my evidence that you asked that indicates that the benefit section lays out what the feat does, and the flavor is just flavor.

So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?

Ironically, you proved our side.

If the flavor and rules don't match, the developers need to be informed.

In other words, they should match. The fact they don't is a sign that either the flavor or the benefit text is in error.

Diminuendo wrote:

if you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand, you know how to hold a heavy weapon in one hand. What you have in your other hand is irrelevent.

Except when the way you are doing 1 hand assumes a Klar in the offhand ;-)

I did? He seems to indicate that the actual rule is in the benefit section and the rest is just flavor.

Now the point about them matching is exactly why I think that RAI is that it should be earthbreaker Klar only. You're welcome to inform them of this over site so that they can errata it.

So I fail to see how it proved your side, other then that the RAI of it is that it's earthbreaker klar.... which I agree with. Now RAW though.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Alls I'm sayin is, the feat ain't called Thunder and Thunder (or Really Really Big Thunder, fer that matter).

That's alls I'm sayin...

[Don't go into Power Dome A]

So do people ITT really think that your Thunder and Fang character should be forced to use his earth breaker with two-hands if his klar gets sundered?

[Diminuendo]

Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:

So do people ITT really think that your Thunder and Fang character should be forced to use his earth breaker with two-hands if his klar gets sundered?

Exactly! Only one hand is involved in holding the Earthbreaker with the Klar, why would the removal of the Klar in the other hand change that?

to quote ThaX;

thaX wrote:

A two handed weapon wielded in one hand does not morph into a different weapon. I believe that a cartoon has some weapons change as characters use them, so does the awful Transformer movies by Micheal Bay. This isn't happening with the Earthbreaker using this feat.

So you are holding an Earthbreakers weight using only the strength in one hand, the removal of the Klar DOES NOT make the Earthbreaker magically become more heavy. The Earthbreaker is the SAME weight, how does unencumbering the other hand make holding the Eathbreaker one handed impossible.

[Umbranus]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Alls I'm sayin is, the feat ain't called Thunder and Thunder (or Really Really Big Thunder, fer that matter).

That's alls I'm sayin...

As has been already said there are several feats whose names are different to what the beenefit is.

Sword and pistol: Can be used with handcrossbow + mace, too.
Belier's bite: Works with unarmed strikes, not with natural weapons. Bite would be a natural weapon.
Broken wing gambit: You can use that feat even if you don't have wings.
Horsemaster: Works for halflings on wolves, too. Not just horses.

Should I go on?

[blackbloodtroll]

My mentioning of Titan Mauler, was to note that this fighting style could be done already, with no feat expenditure.

This means at second level, it is doable, without a 4 feat investment, or dead feats.

You could even continue on into another class, after a two level dip into Titan Mauler.

Say, Two Weapon Fighter.

[thaX]

It is clear that the original intent was to have the thunder and fang work together.

I think, however, that the double wielding of the thunders is, by RAW, another way to use this feat.

Ya just can't wield a larger Earthbreaker with two hands, with or without this feat.

[redward]

Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:

So do people ITT really think that your Thunder and Fang character should be forced to use his earth breaker with two-hands if his klar gets sundered?

I think they really do. The idea is that both hands are holding the Earthbreaker, only one of them has a klar attached to it. If your klar gets sundered, you're still holding it with two hands, only you no longer get the benefit of the klar.

Yes, your damage "magically" increases to 1.5xStr when that happens, but that also makes sense, since you no longer have to worry about the klar and can devote your attention to hitting things hard with a big hammer. Not that realism has any bearing on rules discussions.

[Krodjin]

@redward: with the old version of the feat, you wielded the EB & Klar as a double weapon. In the new version it seems as if each weapon is decidedly 1 handed, with the Klar being treated as a light weapon for the purposes of determining TWF penalties.

If you ever find yourself without a Klar (or other off-hand weapon), you would be better served to use your Earthbreaker 2-handed. Assuming of course that doing damage is your primary objective.

[Kazaan]

thaX wrote:

Ugh...

Nevan Oaks pointed it out, I shall repeat it. Using it as a one-handed weapon does not change the fact that it is still a Two-Handed weapon.

I don't know why you keep bringing that tired old line out since I've put it in the can. An ability that lets you treat a weapon as another handiness category changes what it is for you. It may still be a 2-h weapon objectively speaking, but subjectively speaking you treat it as a one-handed weapon for all mechanical purposes. Thunder and Fang does not just let you wield an Earthbreaker "in one hand". It lets you wield it as a one-handed weapon. No limitations such as "must be sized for you" are present. So, for the character that has Thunder and Fang, they are free to stop treating and mechanically adjudicating the Earthbreaker as a 2-h weapon and, instead, treat and mechanically adjudicate it in all ways, including what it steps up to for an oversized one as a one-handed weapon instead.

I've pointed out that the "mechanically effective handiness category" is more relevant here than the "actual base default handiness category" of the weapon. There are FAQs on the matter, one of which stating that "treated as a one-handed weapon" is a significant phrase that means you adjudicate it as a one-handed weapon while a separate FAQ calls out "wielded in one hand" doesn't disqualify the 2-h weapon Lance from benefiting from the 2-h Power Attack bonus damage. The two are fundamentally different phrases with completely different meanings. Furthermore, as Nevan conspicuously left out of his analysis, A Large Bastard Sword, a 1-h base weapon, doesn't just become a 2-h weapon by size step-up. If it did, then a Medium creature could wield a Large Bastard Sword without EWP. Your claim that it's just the base handiness category that's relevant is entirely incorrect. It's the effective handiness category that is relevant which is why a 1-h Bastard Sword, mechanically treated as an effective 2-h weapon gets stepped up to "unwieldable" when it's one size too big because the effective category goes from 2-h to "unwieldable", regardless of the fact that, normally, a 1-h weapon sized up by one step just becomes a 2-h weapon. Likewise, regardless of the fact that, normally, a 2-h weapon sized up by one step becomes "unwieldable", when you have a feat that lets you mechanically treat it as effectively a one-handed weapon, it's that 1-h category that shifts up to 2-h instead.

[Nevan Oaks]

I am have seen the FAQ on the lance and the bastard sword they are specifically called out and the RAW for them is there for altered.

I cited specific CRB RAW for the use of weapon size, I do disagree with the FAQ on bastard sword so in my home game I follow the RAW (you can use a large bastered sword without EWP) and not the FAQ (which changes RAW to needing EWP to wield the Bastard sword). IF you would link some of these FAQ about two-handed weapons that would be great, saying they exist does nothing for this conversation.

Again I have seen many of the FAQ on the Basted sword and The lance, and the rules on them that i have found only apply to them and not other weapons.

The FAQ show treat it as a one-handed weapon for all mechanical purposes: means you get 1xd strenght damage and not 1.5xd strenght damage.
Not that the size category of the weapon changes.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

I did? He seems to indicate that the actual rule is in the benefit section and the rest is just flavor.

You only read the words of what you posted him saying that agreed with you. You ignored (like you are ignoring the Normal line and the fluff of the feat) the parts he said that basically says you are flat wrong.

The initial response from him (that was previously discard in this thread) saying it only worked with Earth & Klar and this recent response from him saying "they must agree" combine to tell me that at all PFS tables I'm not following RAW if I allow a player to use T&F to use two Earthbreakers. Some good came of this thread. I now know for certain how to rule by RAW.

Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:

So do people ITT really think that your Thunder and Fang character should be forced to use his earth breaker with two-hands if his klar gets sundered?

Absolutely, yes.

[Krodjin]

Question: If a Two-handed Fighter Archetype takes Thunder & Fang and makes a charge whilst wielding his Earthbreaker in 1 hand, does he or she still receive the 2x STR modifier to damage granted by the 3rd level class ability Overhand Chop?

Overhand Chop(Ex) wrote:

At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.

This ability replaces Armor Training 1.

T&F lets you wield an EB as if it were a 1-handed weapon, but it's still a 2-handed weapon. Does the FAQ on wielding 2-handed weapons in 1-hand apply to Overhand Chop?

Paizo Design Team wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/19/13

I'm so twisted up on how this all interacts right now. Now I'm second guessing everything.

[James Risner]

Krodjin wrote:

Question: If a Two-handed Fighter Archetype takes Thunder & Fang and makes a charge whilst wielding his Earthbreaker in 1 hand, does he or she still receive the 2x STR modifier to damage granted by the 3rd level class ability Overhand Chop?

If using a EB with Klar on the Charge, he wouldn't get Overhand Chop.

If the Klar is sundered on the way of the Charge he would get Overhand Chop.

[Krodjin]

Why? Overhand Chop doesn't say anything about using two-hands.

[Kazaan]

Oh good lord, do I have to do everything here? You know, I find and read each and every FAQ that comes out. If someone brings up a FAQ I'm not familiar with, I go look for it myself; I don't wait for someone to serve it up on a silver platter. Moreover, you explicitly say that you know about the Bastard Sword FAQ and chose not to follow it. That's great, but it's a houserule and this is the Rules Forum where we discuss actual rules, not houserules.

So, here are the relevant FAQs:

FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/19/13
---

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.

Here's the first set. The first one asks when when a feat or special ability says to "treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon"... is it still adjudicated as a two-handed weapon or is it treated, effectively, as a one-handed weapon. The official answers by the guys who made the game is that, if it says to treat it as a one-handed weapon, you treat it as a one-handed weapon mechanically as well. Then, go to the Power Attack FAQ referring to Lances. That question is talking about using a two-handed weapon "with one hand". Notice the difference in language: If the 2-h weapon is to be "treated as a one-handed weapon", it is treated as a one-handed weapon not only for how many hands it takes to wield but also for Str bonus to damage, Power Attack bonus, so on and so forth. That also implicitly includes whether it qualifies for feats like Shield of Swings which require you to be attacking with a 2-h weapon; treating it as a one-handed weapon also means it doesn't count as a 2-h weapon for Shield of Swings. By contrast, the Lance isn't "treated as a one-handed weapon" because its block simply says you may "wield it in one hand". It's still a 2-h weapon so it still benefits from 1.5x Str and +50% Power Attack, but it also cannot be sized up and you cannot use an off-hand attack because using a 2-h weapon still subsumes both your main-hand and off-hand attack, even if your off-hand is free for other purposes (ie. casting a spell, maneuvering your horse, deflecting an arrow, using a shield, etc). This establishes that there is a clear distinction between "wield in one hand" and "wield as a one-handed weapon" in the rules.

Next, Bastard Swords:

FAQ wrote:

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13

This FAQ establishes that, for the "hand-and-a-half" weapons (Bastard Sword, Katana, etc), you treat them as two-handed weapons if they're wielded in two hands. That, of course, is for medium creatures. If you size them up to Large, then that "treat it as a two-handed weapon" is also scaled up to "treat it as a "unwieldable" weapon". This is why Amiri, the Iconic Barbarian with a Large Bastard Sword still needs EWP to wield it. If the "effective" size category of the one-handed weapon being "treated as" a two-handed weapon weren't affected by the size step-up, then a Large Bastard Sword would only become a two-handed weapon which must be wielded as a two-handed weapon if you lack EWP. Instead, as we know from developer statements and precedented by the Iconic stat blocks, a Large Bastard Sword wielded by a Medium creature becomes a two-handed weapon which must be wielded as [an] "unwieldable" weapon if you lack EWP. Run that principal the other way, and we have the Earthbreaker, a two-handed weapon which may be wielded as a one-handed weapon with T&F. Step it up to a Large Earthbreaker, and we have [an] "unwieldable" weapon which may be wielded as a two-handed weapon with T&F because the effective category of handiness is how we're wielding it and what must be stepped up.

So, just as you cannot wield a Large Bastard Sword if you lack EWP because its effective category goes from 2-h to "unwieldable", despite it being a 1-h weapon at its base which would normally step up to 2-h, you can wield a Large Earthbreaker if you have T&F because its effective category goes from 1-h to 2-h, despite it being a 2-h at its base which would normally step up to "unwieldable".

[Umbranus]

Krodjin wrote:

Why? Overhand Chop doesn't say anything about using two-hands.

He doesn't use it AS a two-handed weapon and thus doesn't get the benefits of using a two-handed weapon.

[Kazaan]

Umbranus wrote:

Krodjin wrote:

Why? Overhand Chop doesn't say anything about using two-hands.

He doesn't use it AS a two-handed weapon and thus doesn't get the benefits of using a two-handed weapon.

That's correct. Bringing up Bastard Sword again, if you wield it two-handed, it "counts as" a two-handed weapon which means it qualifies for Shield of Swings, Overhand Chop, and other abilities that require using a two-handed weapon. By contrast, just wielding a Longsword in two hands does not. Wielding a two-handed weapon "treated as a one-handed weapon" means it adjudicates as a one-handed weapon; normal 1x Str to damage, normal Power Attack, and it doesn't count as a two-handed weapon anymore for Shield of Swings, Overhand Chop, etc. It would, however, count as a one-handed weapon for abilities requiring the use of a one-handed weapon such as Magus's Spell Combat.

[Krodjin]

Gotcha. Thanks guys. The same provision in Thunder & Fang that allows you to wield an EB in one hand ("You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon".), effectively prohibits it from being considered a 2-handed weapon, while being wielded 1-handed... That whole have your cake and eat it too thing...

[Martiln]

Straying a bit from the rules debate that's going on, I'd just like to point out the picture on P.7 of Varisia: Birthplace of Legends happens to be a Shoanti wielding an Earthbreaker in one hand, and a Klar in the other.

[Nevan Oaks]

Kazaan wrote:

Oh good lord, do I have to do everything here? You know, I find and read each and every FAQ that comes out. If someone brings up a FAQ I'm not familiar with, I go look for it myself; I don't wait for someone to serve it up on a silver platter. Moreover, you explicitly say that you know about the Bastard Sword FAQ and chose not to follow it. That's great, but it's a houserule and this is the Rules Forum where we discuss actual rules, not houserules.

In a debate the burden of prof is on you. I listed CRB RAW with page as prof, you just stated that it has been FAQed some where. Thanks for now listing your source.

Quote:

So, here are the relevant FAQs:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/19/13
---

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.

Yes great we now know that by RAW what STR, and PA bonuses to apply to our weapons based on if you use it one or two handed, nothing here effects the size of the weapon that we can wield. The only thing it talks about is bamage modifires from STR or PA no general weapon mechanic or if a weapon can be wielded.

Quote:

Next, Bastard Swords:

FAQ wrote:
Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13

Thank now we have RAW for bastard swords and similar weapons, as quoted an unusual case

As of yet there is nothing in your FAQs that overrides the CRB RAW

Quote:

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

[Diminuendo]

I dont think the mounted Lance thing really applys to Thunder and Fang

A Lance is a Two-Handed Weapon that can be used with one hand while mounted.

An Earthbreaker is a Two-Handed Weapon that with Thunder and Fang becomes a One-Handed Weapon.

The difference is that while Thunder and Fang is active an Earthbreaker is a One-Handed Weapon for better and for worse.

[Diminuendo]

Martiln wrote:

Straying a bit from the rules debate that's going on, I'd just like to point out the picture on P.7 of Varisia: Birthplace of Legends happens to be a Shoanti wielding an Earthbreaker in one hand, and a Klar in the other.

Yes, using only one hand to support the Earthbreaker, with no help from the other.

[Sub_Zero]

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

I did? He seems to indicate that the actual rule is in the benefit section and the rest is just flavor.

You only read the words of what you posted him saying that agreed with you. You ignored (like you are ignoring the Normal line and the fluff of the feat) the parts he said that basically says you are flat wrong.

The initial response from him (that was previously discard in this thread) saying it only worked with Earth & Klar and this recent response from him saying "they must agree" combine to tell me that at all PFS tables I'm not following RAW if I allow a player to use T&F to use two Earthbreakers. Some good came of this thread. I now know for certain how to rule by RAW.

James, instead of asserting that JJ agrees with you, how about you show what he said, and then show how you are coming to the conclusion that you are coming to.

As far as I am aware I haven' ignored a single bit.

It seems like you're confusing RAW with RAI, but I'm open to you showing me differently.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

As far as I am aware I haven' ignored a single bit.

You willfully ignored this:

Quote:

there's a conflict, that's something the rules team needs to know about, since there shouldn't be conflicts there at all since it's flavor text versus rules text.

The Normal/Flavor and the Benefit are completely in conflict, and we should inform the rules team.

[Sub_Zero]

Sub_Zero wrote:

Now the point about them matching is exactly why I think that RAI is that it should be earthbreaker Klar only. You're welcome to inform them of this over site so that they can errata it.

So I fail to see how it proved your side, other then that the RAI of it is that it's earthbreaker klar.... which I agree with. Now RAW though.

Sub_Zero wrote:

So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?

I very clearly acknowledged what JJ said. I've bolder the relevant quotes.

As I noted the RAW is that it's one-handed, and it's in conflict with the RAI. Please don't say I ignored something that I clearly addressed. It reflects poorly on you.

Again, please go inform the devs that there's a conflict because until they errata it the rule clearly allows you to one-hand an earth breaker.

[blackbloodtroll]

Not sure why there is a push to have this feat be seen in such a way, that if there is a situation in which there must be a ruling, that the mechanically inferior choice is RAW, even if it contradicts previous rulings of RAW, as it was the most mechanically inferior ruling.

Still allows an Earthbreaker to be used in Spell Combat.

Unless, the feat only allows you to treat the Earthbreaker as an One-handed weapon when it would most be least beneficial, and then, treated as a Two-handed weapon, but only when that would be least beneficial.

This really seems to be the push, and it just does not jive with me well.

[thaX]

We are going in circles again.

Lets point it out again. The FAQ quoted above is relating the one handed use of the two handed weapon to what damage modifiers would be used while doing so. It says nothing about the size category of the weapon itself.

Nothing.

It doesn't change.

"...And so on." doesn't mean to throw in the kitchen sink.

I still don't like that one would use this feat to use two Earthbreakers at the same time, but I can concede that the wording used in the current iteration supports it.

What it does not support is the use of a larger version of the weapon with two hands. The weapon never changed, just how it is used by the character has. Two-Handed still can't be wielded by a smaller character.

There are other class abilities and powers out there that makes it possible, the REDCAP example being one of them, but it isn't this feat.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

It reflects poorly on you.

Your behavior reflects poorly on you to suggest that something I'm doing that is reasonable would reflect poorly on me.

The main point is you believe the RAW says one thing and I believe the RAW says another thing. We now have two different JJ responses with opposite views on the feat.

[Diminuendo]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not sure why there is a push to have this feat be seen in such a way, that if there is a situation in which there must be a ruling, that the mechanically inferior choice is RAW, even if it contradicts previous rulings of RAW, as it was the most mechanically inferior ruling.

Because it would look freaking bad-ass!

[blackbloodtroll]

You know, they had to change the wording of Jotungrip, to actually stop people from wielding large Two-handed weapons.

Titan Mauler wrote:

Jotungrip (Ex)

At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.

This ability replaces uncanny dodge.

Note: The "appropriately sized for her" part was added later.

With Thunder and Fang, there is no such wording.

Hilariously, the author's original intent, was to allow the PC to wield larger weapons, but was later changed, in spite of this.

[CrystalSpellblade]

I do believe the FAQ people are talking about is this one

FAQ wrote:

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?

No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."

[Umbranus]

CrystalSpellblade wrote:

I do believe the FAQ people are talking about is this one

FAQ wrote:

Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?

No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Edit 7/26/13: Correction of a typo in the second sentence that said "you can't wield a two-handed weapon in two hands."

With that FAQ it's silly that the bastard sword is listed as a one-handed weapon. Because this describes it as a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed as exception. Which makes sense. But the weapon's entry contradicts that. An add-on to this FAQ stating that it is a two-handed weapon would be in order.

[HectorVivis]

On the big hammer stuff:

Paizo seems to avoid like Hell the possibility of a medium character wielding a large two-handed weapon, thus the specificity of the wording on the Titan Mauler and the bastard sword.
The day Paizo will be okay with it, they'll make a class/archetype/feat for that with a clear description that it is the intent.

IMO, you're just trying to do that by taking away a sentence in a bad written feat about TWFing 2 specific weapons, and that's not cool.

[Kazaan]

The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon as its base type, but it is mechanically treated as a two-handed weapon if you wield it in two hands. This is a mechanical categorization which is why it doesn't show up in the list of 2-h Martial weapons, for the same reason that Earthbreaker doesn't show up in the list of one-handed weapons because a particular feat allows you to wield it as a one-handed weapon. But just because it's a mechanically derived handiness category doesn't mean it's fluff and doesn't mean it doesn't interact with other rules. Since the Bastard Sword wielded in two hands is "treated as a two-handed weapon" mechanically, it is impossible to wield it in one hand if you lack EWP. And, for the same reason, even though it's a one-handed weapon, when you size it up to Large, that "mechanical" category of two-handed steps up to "unwieldable". This is why you need EWP to wield a Large Bastard Sword; because size step-up applies to your "effective" handiness category, not the "base" handiness category. In most cases, the two will coincide; a Longsword is a one-handed weapon and you wield it, effectively, as a one-handed weapon. But a Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon that, if you lack EWP, you must wield effectively as a two-handed weapon and then that category of two-handed weapon goes up to "unwieldable" for a "one-size-too-big" Bastard Sword. If this weren't the case, if only the base category went up, it would be a two-handed weapon that you must wield, effectively, as a two-handed weapon; well in that case, the base category has "caught up" with the effective category.

As a consequence of this logic, lets say you have a Medium Creature who finds a Tiny Longsword and a Tiny Bastard Sword. Now, a one-handed weapon stepped down two sizes becomes unwieldable because that would take it below "light". So the Tiny Longsword is, outright, unwieldable. But the Bastard Sword is a "special case" in that it it has an effective category different from its actual category. When you wield a Bastard Sword in two hands, its effective category is two-handed. Size it down by 1 (to small) and it is a Light weapon with an effective category of One-Handed. You'd be able to wield it as a Light weapon if you had EWP (and get reduced TWF penalties), but if you lack EWP, you must wield it as a one-handed weapon with all the benefits and drawbacks involved. One more step down and its base size goes to "unwieldable" but its effective size is still left at "light". Furthermore, since even a character with EWP can still wield it at its mechanical category of 2-h, whether you have EWP or not, that effective category only goes down to Light even though the base category goes down to "unwieldable". So, since a Bastard Sword is a bigger than your typical one-handed sword, you can wield a Tiny Bastard Sword as a Light weapon while you couldn't wield a Tiny Longsword. Size Stepup from oversized and undersized weapons applies to your effective handiness category, not the base handiness category. That's after feats and abilities have been taken into consideration.

Therefore, a Large Earthbreaker, a base two-handed weapon, which is mechanically treated as a one-handed weapon because of Thunder&Fang, gets that mechanical category stepped up from one-handed to two-handed. By the same token, the Small Redcap wielding a Medium Scythe which is a base two-handed weapon, bypasses the size step because of Massive Weapons. So, even though a Medium 2-h weapon would normally be "unwieldable", just as the Large 2-h Earthbreaker would normally be "unwieldable", if you have an ability that either changes the effective handiness category or removes the size step penalty, you can wield it despite the limitations of the "normal" situation. Something specific something general...

[Nevan Oaks]

Yes the part about the bastard sword is correct. The bastard sword is a special case, and the FAQ you are using only applies to the bastard sword. not to all two-handed weapon.

what we need to ask is:
Can I wield this weapon? is it light, one-handed or two-handed for my size? if the answer is yes the I can wield it with any appropreate feats.

If the answer is no then I can't wield it as stated by RAW

Nothing in your FAQ applies to over sized weapons outside of the bastard sword.

Quote:

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13

I see no mention of other or any two-handed weapon, just the bastard sword

Now a bit off but the only FAQ I can find on weapon size points to the view that paizo does not want players useing oversized large weapons.

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

So a large earthbreaker is not usable by RAW

[thaX]

Kazaan wrote:

Therefore, a Large Earthbreaker, a base two-handed weapon, which is mechanically treated as a one-handed weapon because of Thunder&Fang, gets that mechanical category stepped up from one-handed to two-handed.

The Bastard sword is a special case, see post above by Nevan Oaks. The mechanical aspects of the weapon change because it is a part of the rules for that weapon.

So, going to the Earthbreaker, it does not have the same qualities as the Bastard Sword. The weapon itself doesn't have any mechanics that changes it's own aspect. It is, always, a two-handed weapon.

The overall point you are missing, or outright ignoring, is the simple fact that this feat allows a particular circumstance to wield a weapon differently than the normal way. It doesn't actually change what the weapon is, how it is made, or the disignation of it's use. It isn't Mechanically treated as a one-handed weapons, it is used as a one-handed weapon. Mechanically, it is still a two-handed weapon.

The Redcap, as mentioned earlier in the thread, has an ability that allows him to weild medium weapons with no hendrence. This is likely to do with the magical nature of gremlins or the upper body strength that is specifically atuned to weilding weapons larger than itself.

It is a stretch to wield two of these suckers at the same time. (This feat was meant to give an AC bonus on top of using the Earthbreaker with the Klar) To insist that it also allows a character to wield a larger Earthbreaker at all, with his pinky or with both hands, is going beyond the scope of the feat.

[Kazaan]

Just because it's a special case doesn't mean the same principal doesn't logically apply to other similar cases. The reason why it works for a Bastard Sword is because the size step-up applies to the effective manner of wielding, not the base manner of wielding. Just as the rules state, a weapon has a default handiness that indicates how much effort it takes to wield. But if an ability would change that, you take it into consideration first before applying size-based step-up or step-down for handiness.

If you really want to play the Pedantic game, the feat says you can wield an Earthbreaker as a one-handed weapon; it doesn't say an Earthbreaker sized for you. If we want to play "disregard logic" here, I could wield an Earthbreaker sized for a Colossal creature in one hand because I have the feat because it says, right there, "you can wield". Say nothing of being able to wield just a Large Earthbreaker. Of course, we all know that would be ridiculous and a gross violation of common sense (or at least, we should). Size Step-up is based on how you wield the weapon, not its base weapon handiness. Base handiness just tells you what the default is for how you wield it as well as some physical attributes.

[Starbuck_II]

Nevan Oaks wrote:

Nothing in your FAQ applies to over sized weapons outside of the bastard sword.

Quote:

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/28/13

I see no mention of other or any two-handed weapon, just the bastard sword

Now a bit off but the only FAQ I can find on weapon size points to the view that paizo does not want players useing oversized large weapons.

Quote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: Does this rule (page 136) allow a Medium or smaller creature to use larger firearms of any size?

The text of the rule is, "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it." The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

So a large earthbreaker is not usable by RAW

The gun nerf was just mean.

[Sub_Zero]

So James, I've had the impression that you use a completely different definition of what RAW means that what is commonly accepted. A quick look through your posts confirmed this. Had you pointed this out earlier the way you did in previous places with statements like:

James Risner wrote:

RAW is what the rules tell you to do using a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

I would have let you know that we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're definition of RAW is my definition of RAI. This also explains why you think it is possible to have multiple valid definitions of RAW.

So under you're different definition of RAW yes earthbreaker/klar is the only way to use this feat. Your taking intent and interpretation into your answer. The last part is something I don't do when evaluating the RAW of a feat since I leave that to being RAI.

Under my definition of RAW (as well as most posters that I've run across), you can dual wield earth breakers. This is because my definition of RAW is simply applying what the feat actually says under its benefit line, because as JJ said "The benefit section is what tells you how the feat works. The description/flavor text at the start of the feat is just that—flavor."

Now the second part of his statement " If there's a conflict, that's something the rules team needs to know about, since there shouldn't be conflicts there at all since it's flavor text versus rules text." seems to indicate that there shouldn't be a conflict between the rules and the flavor. Again, please let the devs know because there is a difference.

Finally,

James Risner wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

It reflects poorly on you.

Your behavior reflects poorly on you to suggest that something I'm doing that is reasonable would reflect poorly on me.

The main point is you believe the RAW says one thing and I believe the RAW says another thing. We now have two different JJ responses with opposite views on the feat.

You missed the reason I said what you were doing reflected poorly on you, so allow me to elaborate. Lets first take a look at the full context of what I said.

Sub_Zero wrote:

Sub_Zero wrote:

Now the point about them matching is exactly why I think that RAI is that it should be earthbreaker Klar only. You're welcome to inform them of this over site so that they can errata it.

So I fail to see how it proved your side, other then that the RAI of it is that it's earthbreaker klar.... which I agree with. Now RAW though.

Sub_Zero wrote:

So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?

I very clearly acknowledged what JJ said. I've bolder the relevant quotes.

As I noted the RAW is that it's one-handed, and it's in conflict with the RAI. Please don't say I ignored something that I clearly addressed. It reflects poorly on you.

Again, please go inform the devs that there's a conflict because until they errata it the rule clearly allows you to one-hand an earth breaker.

What you did was say that I'm ignoring text that I have clearly not ignored. You've repeated this line despite the fact that I've not.

Then again it seems that you pulled that quote of me out of context to make it look like I was saying that your interpretation reflects poorly on you. I didn't, instead I was point out how saying that I did something that I clearly didn't do, reflects poorly on you.

So at this point you have:

1. Ignored what I've said
2. Said I've ignored parts of the rules, that I've clearly addressed
3. Taken a quote of me out of context to make it appear to say something I didn't say.
4. Used my out of context quote to say that what I'm saying reflects poorly on me.
5. Ignored large portions of what I've wrote and responded only to small segments (that were usually addressed in the parts that you ignored).

So, after all of this, I'll now generalize further. Your posting on this thread is reflecting poorly on you.

With that said, I bid this thread ado. There's a far more interesting debate between Kazaan, ThaX, and others. I'm sure people passing through this thread will see who was arguing honestly and who wasn't.

[Nevan Oaks]

Kazaan wrote:

Just because it's a special case doesn't mean the same principal doesn't logically apply to other similar cases.

Great my players will love to use your logic at my table, since the lance is a special case which allows it to be wielded in one hand when mounted all two-handed weapons can be wielded in one hand when mounted.

You cannot apply a rule for a special case to other cases.

With that I will also hold that this is not a similar case, since a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon and an earthbreaker is a two-handed weapon.

[James Risner]

Sub_Zero wrote:

What you did was say that I'm ignoring text that I have clearly not ignored. You've repeated this line despite the fact that I've not.

There is a difference between the flavor/normal and the benefits, there should be a difference. So the rules in the benefit line need to be read with this in mind. You have ignored the flavor/normal line in the quest for your version of RAW. Your version basically amounts to "I'll read it any way I like and I'll keep asserting I'm right until the other guy stops."